Author
Topic: Does god exist (Read 12295 times)

A supernatural being who :1) By supernatural means created the universe (through big bang or instantaniously poofed)2) Either interacts with his humanity or does not interact with his creation (hands on or hands off god)

I have been told that I have misunderstood the position of atheists on this site and am just trying to undersand where people stand.

I would like to say that a god or gods don't exist, but I'm told by other atheists that I can't be sure, so even most of us want a little wiggle room. Present party excluded.

So I voted "not likely".

What I pay attention to when god claims are made is that almost all (scientology would be an exception) are old stories, from old times, past on with old ideas and old values. For whatever reason, I am expected to understand that this god character hung around and took direct action for awhile, then backed off and left us to fend for ourselves. Or some variation of that story. And I just can't buy it.

I am expected to read Greek myths and say "Well, of course, those aren't true" but then read the bible and say "Wow, this must be true!" I can't seem to do that.

Were new god stories being transmitted on a regular basis, like UFO sightings are, then I might have a slightly different POV. I'd probably think it was a conspiracy or something. But nonetheless, having only old tales to go by, and no sign whatsoever that a god has been involved in any way (other than those old stories, of which there are many, including gobs of non-christian ones), I go with the most likely scenario. They were all made up. At a time when gods were important for explanatory and control reasons. They aren't needed now. So we humans can stop with the fairy tales.

I also contend that a real god would be able to help conjure up stories about him and his expectations, rather than having a version that sounded so much like all the clearly fake god stories. (By fake, I mean, in this case, fake to the believer who thinks his or her god story is true.) A real god who requires belief just the way fake ones do, a real god who is just as invisible as the others to people today, a real god who is as indifferent to his own followers as he is to those who don't believe would be too pathetic a character to actually exist.

The day some religious group starts enjoying demonstrably better lives, with longer life spans, better heath, more prosperity, few social and personal problems and has an infinite supple of iPads, I might reconsider. In the meantime, all religions are clowns on this bus. (If you don't know who The Firesign Theatre was, that last sentence probably sounds weird. Live with it.)

Gods do not exist, even as a possibility, unless by "gods" you mean "advanced space aliens that didn't create dick".

The arguments used for the existence of one or more deities are all fallacious, which is well known around the Internet by anyone with half a neuron. There is no possible way for gods to exist. Even using the arguments provided by theists, gods cannot exist.One of those arguments is the "things are too complex to have just come from nothing" argument. It would have us believe that complexity is a sign of design. If so, the god would also have to have been designed, since a complex system like the universe would require an even more complex designer. And so the god that designed it would also have to have been designed. And so on, ad infinitum.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

I know I'm supposed to say "I do not think they exist because of lack of evidence", I've come to the conclusion that is a philosophical hedge. Zeus does not exist. Odin does not exist. Quetzequoatal does not exist. Marduk does not exist. These are all simply facts. Why should I act as if the scaled up, generic, abstract cousin of these nonetities is something I should waste my time even considering? If someone were to bring me evidence of Odin, well, I'd have to change my position. But until then, gtfo with gods.

That is my opinion which is distinct from atheism in general, which is just a rejection of the claim "gods exist" for lack of evidence.

Gods do not exist, even as a possibility, unless by "gods" you mean "advanced space aliens that didn't create dick".

The arguments used for the existence of one or more deities are all fallacious, which is well known around the Internet by anyone with half a neuron. There is no possible way for gods to exist. Even using the arguments provided by theists, gods cannot exist.One of those arguments is the "things are too complex to have just come from nothing" argument. It would have us believe that complexity is a sign of design. If so, the god would also have to have been designed, since a complex system like the universe would require an even more complex designer. And so the god that designed it would also have to have been designed. And so on, ad infinitum.

It is this hard core answer that blows my mind. I don't believe god is likely, but it is the height of arrogants to suggest that it is impossible for a god to exist. How can you claim to know all that is knowable? What makes you think for a fact god impossible?

I know I'm supposed to say "I do not think they exist because of lack of evidence", I've come to the conclusion that is a philosophical hedge. Zeus does not exist. Odin does not exist. Quetzequoatal does not exist. Marduk does not exist. These are all simply facts. Why should I act as if the scaled up, generic, abstract cousin of these nonetities is something I should waste my time even considering? If someone were to bring me evidence of Odin, well, I'd have to change my position. But until then, gtfo with gods.

That is my opinion which is distinct from atheism in general, which is just a rejection of the claim "gods exist" for lack of evidence.

Could peoples desire to create and name gods be based on a long lost relationship with a diety? Could the many Gods be a byproduct of people seeking him?

Of course that requires a hands off god, I just thought of this, what relavance is a hands off God, he would not have an interest in the vastly inferior people who are trying to worship him. A hands off god is undetectable and probably would not consider us as no different than gravity, or atoms. Now a hands on god who is now hands off because he set the rules might be relevant but subject to pure faith in the words of 2000 year old peoples long gone penned after their lifetimes.

In the meantime, all religions are clowns on this bus. (If you don't know who The Firesign Theatre was, that last sentence probably sounds weird. Live with it.)

Back when I had a turntable and vinyl, I was the proud owner of the first four FS albums. IIRC, I Think We're All Bozos On This Bus (Warning: Contains spoilers) contains the line "Up Against the Wall... of Science!"

If there is an interventionist god, than he's doing a bang up job of pretending to be non-interventionist. So until he/she/it actually does something noticeable I'm going to stick with a deistic god at the most.

As for the nature of our universe. I can certainly see how some uber-intelligence might have once gone ... "I wonder what would happen if I ... *BIG BANG* ... Neat-o! Now I'm going to ... ummm ... devide by zero!!! That ought to be fun!" and he never cleaned up the universe he created.Or such a creature could have created the entire universe as-is 5 minutes ago, with everything in place heading the right way and we'd never know.Or we could indeed be living inside a computer simulation. There actually is scientific research going to try and see if we can find the edges of the simulation. Should we discover that we're inside the Celestial Windows ... would we call the uber Bill Gates god?However given the universe we actually know ... I see no need for any sort of god to be involved. (never mind that, there's the whole ... if we were to find uber gates ... where did he come from?)

Logged

2 Interwebs 7:42And in the seventh year, thou shalt cast out the Nam from thine assembly for he haveth a potty mouth.

I voted "God or gods are not likely" because I could not possibly know whether they do or don't, exist, but I will go as far to say that I'm 99.99999% recurring sure, that they don't.

Here is something that may help you in your quest, Epidemic.

It was posted up here by Mr Friday in July 2008, he has since moved on.

* There is not one iota of unequivocal evidence that any God exists. * God cannot explain all that exists because God itself cannot be explained. This claim just gratuitously swaps one mystery for another. * Religions do not explain any mechanism or process whereby God created everything. It is effectively an appeal to magic. * Religious faith is generally indistinguishable from gullibility. Trust and faith, as human concepts, are normally based on experience and reason. Religious faith is necessarily based on belief in unproved and unknowable things. * A god or anything that exists outside the realm of natural reality is necessarily unknowable, unintelligible and incoherent. It is therefore irrational to believe in something that is supernatural. * Religious scripture: o is man-made o contains many translation and interpretation errors o is often self-contradictory o often contradicts known facts o promotes conversion by violence o calls for punishment and death to unbelievers o contains virtually no specific and unequivocal predictions o contains only vague predictions beyond its own time o contains many failed prophecies, predictions and unfulfilled promises of God * Scripture contains too much that is vague, metaphorical and symbolic to be instructions from a divine being to humans. A perfect being would be expected to be able to communicate much better than that. * In order to render most of scripture useful, it must necessarily be interpreted. This makes it easily twisted to support nefarious purposes. * The problems with scriptures outweigh any good messages they may contain. If read at all, they should be considered opinion and philosophy and taken with a grain of salt. * Morals are based on human sympathy and empathy, not on divine guidance. Establishing moral codes based on theism is unnecessary, riddled with contradictions, and fraught with danger. * Religion is divisive in that it pits groups of otherwise indistinguishable people against one another. There are already more than enough differences for humans to fight over. And religion is the most intransigent of such divisions because many people feel it is a divine duty to revile those who believe differently than they do even if they don't see the reason in it. * Religions are generally intractable when it comes to substantive compromise with other religions or belief systems. * All suggested ways to perceive God rely on internal mechanisms that are subject to personal desires, suggestion, and mistakes. On the question of communicating with God, religion insidiously asks us all to deceive ourselves. * People are animals. We are only special due to our more developed brain. (We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees) * Abrahamic religions teach that the earth is only about 6000 to 10000 years old. All claims of a young earth are refuted by volumes of clear and mutually corroborating evidence in multiple scientific disciplines as well as a host of mutually confirming dating techniques that are not subjective or rationalized. * Every culture that has existed has had God myths and other superstitions. This is often used as an argument for the existence of God. Rather than indicating that there is a true God, this indicates that people are simply attracted to the idea. * Goodness, truth, wisdom and all other purported attributes of God are human concepts. When applied to a presumed entity so completely different in kind as to be supernatural, they are meaningless. The idea of God is thus incoherent. * Infinity is a concept humans cannot comprehend except in a limited mathematical sense. If God is infinite, this also renders him unintelligible. * Belief in an afterlife is insidious and detrimental to social responsibility and mental health. It demeans actual life and frequently leads to the notion that killing someone is, at least conceivably, doing them a favor. * Organized religion wastes untold amounts of money and resources that could be used to care for people, promote real knowledge, and advance the human race. * Theism puts God above people thereby making people subservient, unimportant and expendable. * Religion relies on guilt, fear and outlandish promises to gain obedience. * Theism generally precludes any possibility of testing God or questioning his existence substantively. It is something like the wizard of Oz saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." * The methods used in proselytizing for religion bear an unmistakable resemblance to the methods of confidence men. But the scriptures consider this the great commission of mankind. * There are many good rational and logical arguments against theism but not one argument in favor of it that doesn't rely on a fallacy or assumption. * There are so many Gods put forth by thousands of religions that no one could ever be certain of picking the correct one, assuming that one exists. * Prayer is totally subjective and cannot be shown to have any more efficacy than pure chance. * There is no discernable difference between believing in God and having an imaginary friend. * People generally rely on facts and evidence in every human endeavor except religion. * Unequivocal miracles do not occur. * God supposedly speaks directly to the human spirit. This must be, at least partly, the same concept as mind. People who receive messages in their minds are invariably delusional. * There is no positive correlation between belief in God and being a moral person. * Populations that are predominantly theistic are almost invariably poor and undereducated. The converse is almost invariably true of populations that are predominantly atheistic. * Populations that are predominantly theistic almost invariably have higher general crime rates, higher violent crime rates, higher murder rates, higher infant mortality rates, more disease and starvation as well as inadequate healthcare. The converse is almost invariably true of populations that are predominantly atheistic. * Belief in religion has spawned uncounted cults that draw people in by appealing to the concept of faith without proof and the promise of prophets to come. Some examples are: Jim Jones and the People's Temple, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, Marshal Applewhite and Heaven's Gate. These groups had religious followers who were convinced to brutalize, mutilate and kill themselves and their children on the basis of this kind of blind faith. * Religion has an extremely violent history that includes such things as crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, genocide, terrorism and holy war. Untold millions have died in the name of religious icons and for religious beliefs. * Religions have a long history of misogyny. * Religion can be and has been used to support the concept of slavery. * Religious dogma is practically immune to the incorporation of new facts. The best it can do is strained reinterpretation. * The argument that God cannot be proven not to exist is irrelevant when one considers that to do so requires that the concept of a supernatural God be intelligible and coherent, which it is not. * There is a well known argument commonly called "The Problem of Evil". It basically says that if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God exists, unnecessary or gratuitous evil would not exist in the world. Thus if God sees this type of evil and does nothing he is either not omnibenevolent because he doesn't care or not omnipotent because he is unable to stop it. There are many counter-arguments that have been used. However the only one that really could defeat the Problem of Evil is if one says that we cannot apply human standards to decide what is or is not gratuitous evil. This may well be true, but that argument renders God unintelligible and meaningless to humans. Either way, the concept of God seems to be highly doubtful. * Theists claim that God has given humans free will. However, this free will is anything but free. The choices are forced on pain of death and eternal suffering. It is equivalent to having a slave and saying something like: "I grant you your freedom to leave at any time. But if you do, I will torture you mercilessly and kill you as slowly as possible."

If someone wants to convince me that there is a God, it is not sufficient to quibble about one point or another. I think this amounts to a preponderance of evidence that God is imaginary.

Could peoples desire to create and name gods be based on a long lost relationship with a diety? Could the many Gods be a byproduct of people seeking him?

Is it concpetually possible? Sure. But that idea has a lot of explaining to do. Why do we have no relationship now? Where did this god go? What exactly was this "god"? Why should we even consider that in the first place?

And let's be fair about it - you are just making it up. We could sit down and imagine all sorts of animals that could be conceptually possible. We could imagine a species of winged spiders, horrifying as it may be, which fly around with their webs dangling beneath them catching insects and small children. We could imagine carniverous goats. We could conceive of centaurs and minotaurs and harpies. But there is no reason for us to leave open the possibility of their existence, because it was all just stuff we dreamed up.

The same with gods. We could sit down and hash out a concept of a god that could, hypotheically, actually exist. But so what? That would just be a mental exercise and there would be no need for us to suppose the product of that exercise may actually exist.

I dabbled with a hands off, deist god for a few weeks between catholicism and atheism. I rejected it for several reasons. I asked myself, why the heck am I even considering this in the first place? The answer was because prior to a deist god, I believed in a similar, purely fantastical god whom I realized was a myth and I was just trying to find ways to hold on to him. It was a form of philosophical evolution and people have dont that since they believed in gods.

You realize the god in which you believed could not possibly exist as he was defined. So you change him. Lather, rinse, repeat. After 3000 years or so of this, we have God (capital G) which is formless, genderless (but we still call "Him"), completely abstract, outside of anything we are familiar with, and completely out of reach. But he loves us! Rich, isn't it?

He wasn't always that way. The gods spoken of in the OT, yhwh and elohim, where none of that stuff. Well, elohim was a little more detached and abstract, but yhwh was as human as any of the greek gods. He was jealous, wrathful, vengeful and looked like us. He played favorites. But over time even the jews realized what a childish and impossible idea this was. So they changed him. They made him universal, an only child, transcendent, abstract. yhwh ceased being a being and became just an idea. Because the only other option was to stop believing in a god. And that was just too much.

Could peoples desire to create and name gods be based on a long lost relationship with a diety? Could the many Gods be a byproduct of people seeking him?

Is it concpetually possible? Sure. But that idea has a lot of explaining to do. Why do we have no relationship now? Where did this god go? What exactly was this "god"? Why should we even consider that in the first place?

And let's be fair about it - you are just making it up. We could sit down and imagine all sorts of animals that could be conceptually possible. We could imagine a species of winged spiders, horrifying as it may be, which fly around with their webs dangling beneath them catching insects and small children. We could imagine carniverous goats. We could conceive of centaurs and minotaurs and harpies. But there is no reason for us to leave open the possibility of their existence, because it was all just stuff we dreamed up.

The same with gods. We could sit down and hash out a concept of a god that could, hypotheically, actually exist. But so what? That would just be a mental exercise and there would be no need for us to suppose the product of that exercise may actually exist.

I dabbled with a hands off, deist god for a few weeks between catholicism and atheism. I rejected it for several reasons. I asked myself, why the heck am I even considering this in the first place? The answer was because prior to a deist god, I believed in a similar, purely fantastical god whom I realized was a myth and I was just trying to find ways to hold on to him. It was a form of philosophical evolution and people have dont that since they believed in gods.

You realize the god in which you believed could not possibly exist as he was defined. So you change him. Lather, rinse, repeat. After 3000 years or so of this, we have God (capital G) which is formless, genderless (but we still call "Him"), completely abstract, outside of anything we are familiar with, and completely out of reach. But he loves us! Rich, isn't it?

He wasn't always that way. The gods spoken of in the OT, yhwh and elohim, where none of that stuff. Well, elohim was a little more detached and abstract, but yhwh was as human as any of the greek gods. He was jealous, wrathful, vengeful and looked like us. He played favorites. But over time even the jews realized what a childish and impossible idea this was. So they changed him. They made him universal, an only child, transcendent, abstract. yhwh ceased being a being and became just an idea. Because the only other option was to stop believing in a god. And that was just too much.

I accept god as a possible concept. But in typing this I realized that the most likely form of god (hands off god) would seem pretty much irrelevant and undetectable.

Poof Bang you have a universe and observe it leaves little room for worship, it would be significant in that it would be cool to know but a hands off god would consider us no more than any other lump of atoms in the universe.

A supernatural being who :1) By supernatural means created the universe (through big bang or instantaniously poofed)2) Either interacts with his humanity or does not interact with his creation (hands on or hands off god)

I have been told that I have misunderstood the position of atheists on this site and am just trying to undersand where people stand.

My from the hip answer:As defined in both cases I will have to go with "I do not know if such an entity exists" on the grounds that supernatural is far too poorly defined for me to make a confident judgment.

Further thoughts...My primary issue with 'supernatural' is that I just don't view reality that way I guess. There exists one shared objective reality. If phenomenon typically associated with 'supernatural' such as ghosts, unicorns, zombies, etc. then actually manifest then they are, by definition, part of reality. The word 'supernatural' adds nothing of value to the conversation. If we go down that route, we're then talking about a sentient[1] being, subject to the limitations of what we currently understand about how reality operates, that created the universe. I do not see that as reasonable...or even possible.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

And let's be fair about it - you are just making it up. We could sit down and imagine all sorts of animals that could be conceptually possible. We could imagine a species of winged spiders, horrifying as it may be, which fly around with their webs dangling beneath them catching insects and small children. We could imagine carniverous goats. We could conceive of centaurs and minotaurs and harpies. But there is no reason for us to leave open the possibility of their existence, because it was all just stuff we dreamed up.

The Ancient Greeks figured out as much. They had all these stories about gods and demi-gods and super human heros and monsters and magical armor and weapons and fantastic events (like the sun racing across the sky along an erratic path) ... but, when they actually looked around. They saw nothing of the kind. In a first instance they went, "ah but you USED to be able to see all these things but gods are more hands off these days." which in turn evolved into atheism. Atheism was not uncommon in Ancient Greece.

Logged

2 Interwebs 7:42And in the seventh year, thou shalt cast out the Nam from thine assembly for he haveth a potty mouth.

I fail to see the relationship between the complexity of the first computer and the genesis of the universe. The first computer I find to be a great leap in technology however when explained the invention path and operation all makes sense. The universe spawning from nothing is not so easily explained away leaving multiple origin scenarios including god.

You think it is arrogant of me to claim your statement as fact god does not exist ? How is it you can say with authority that god does not exist with out being arrogant it implies knowledge that does not exist?

Fallacy-free argument for dieties (I am not the right person to ask, as I have already expressed I do not know if one exists. ). Conversely, Can you find me a fallacy free argument that explains the universes ultimate origins and how you exclude a god from the list of possible alterantives.

Here you go, a falacy free argument as strong as the universe being spawned from nothing. ( a God may have created the universe through sheer force of will.

A supernatural being who :1) By supernatural means created the universe (through big bang or instantaniously poofed)2) Either interacts with his humanity or does not interact with his creation (hands on or hands off god)

I have been told that I have misunderstood the position of atheists on this site and am just trying to undersand where people stand.

My from the hip answer:As defined in both cases I will have to go with "I do not know if such an entity exists" on the grounds that supernatural is far too poorly defined for me to make a confident judgment.

Further thoughts...My primary issue with 'supernatural' is that I just don't view reality that way I guess. There exists one shared objective reality. If phenomenon typically associated with 'supernatural' such as ghosts, unicorns, zombies, etc. then actually manifest then they are, by definition, part of reality. The word 'supernatural' adds nothing of value to the conversation. If we go down that route, we're then talking about a sentient[1] being, subject to the limitations of what we currently understand about how reality operates, that created the universe. I do not see that as reasonable...or even possible.

People love to mince words, true supernatural is actually just an extension of Natural. If an omnimpotent god exists it is natural that if he desires a universe he can create one. So by supernatural I guess I mean some event that happens by sheer force of will of a being or beings to make a change in the universe, utilizing mere thought of said being makes a change in matter or energy.

I'm sure to 90% that God is not real. But like I doubt about his existence I know that if God does exist really I will have problems with him.I think that God is probably a fictional character because (I will cite three arguments) :

1.The torah (named pentateuch by Christians) and the Qur'an speak about first humans who were made with clay.But all biologists know that Adam and Eve are only mythological people like they know that Evolution theory is true.If God does exist really why tell to us a story of this kind inspired by babylonians myths ? (during many years I believed that the Genesis is an allegory to explain many things like what is the sin).

2.Why we don't have archælogical evidences about the Exodus ?Many historians think that the Exodus is a myth.Many believers think that God or Satan hidden the proofs.

3.Why we don't have evidences about the Hebrews who were slaves in Egypt during many centuries ?Many historians think that Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt.Many believers think that God or Satan hidden the proofs.

The universe spawning from nothing is not so easily explained away leaving multiple origin scenarios including god.

The universe did not spawn "from nothing", which you'd know if you had studied physics, like I have. While I'm no physicist, I understand enough to know that the "god" scenario is not one of the possibilities.Put simply, time and space are a requirement for interaction. Even if by some miracle of physics, gods were possible, they would be unable to interact with us. In fact, they would not even exist, since time and space are also a requirement for existence.

Here you go, a falacy free argument as strong as the universe being spawned from nothing. ( a God may have created the universe through sheer force of will.

That's not a fallacy free argument. First of all, will does not affect the universe unless living beings act on it. Second, to be able to create something, you must be outside that something. As I've explained previously, time and space are a requirement for existence, or, at the very least, interaction. Ergo, gods[1] cannot exist.

Conversely, Can you find me a fallacy free argument that explains the universes ultimate origins and how you exclude a god from the list of possible alterantives.

I can do so as well. And like OAA, you have to demonstrate that you are willing to actually read it before I'm willing to go to the effort of explaining it. A mindset that is receptive to being introduced to an approach that is very different from your own is also required, and I'm honestly not sure you are prepared to do so.

It's up to you to decide if you really want these answers or if you would prefer not to face the challenge they may present. My explanation isn't going anywhere and I can be persuaded to share it with you whenever you are ready to consider a perspective that contradicts your own. Until and unless you are truly interested, there's no point.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Conversely, Can you find me a fallacy free argument that explains the universes ultimate origins and how you exclude a god from the list of possible alterantives.

1. Creation is an action. As in, an act of creation.2. Actions can only occur within a time-continuum. Ie, without a prior state when something didn't exist, one cannot point to a latter state where it does and say that it came into being.3. "Prior" to our space-time continuum, there was no time.4. Therefore, "prior" to our space-time continuum, our space-time continuum could not have been created.

I nearly voted for:"God or gods are not likely".I probably would have voted that if the wording had been:"God or gods are EXTREMELY unlikely"So I went for the stronger option which is more honest for me. I have many reasons to be almost entirely sure there are no gods, the few key reasons being:

any god or complex god-like thing would itself have needed to evolve from simpler beginnings

"creation" is full of design errors and inefficiencies

random suffering (human and non-human) can't be reconciled with a god we can respect

god can't communicate

religion sucks - a decent god would fix it

I've had no personal experiences of god - I sincerely gave it my best shot before coming to understand the silence.